Jump to content
Tweety Tweety (New Member) New Member

Presidential Election 2020

Politics   (5,357 Views 325 Comments)
1,077 Likes; 6 Followers; 47,832 Visitors; 27,033 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

You are reading page 20 of Presidential Election 2020. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

I wonder why McConnell is opposed to the entire bill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is already illegal for a non citizen to vote in federal and statewide elections. I think it would be redundant to condemn an existing crime in a new bill. The bill is about creating statutes and regulations removing barriers and actual election fraud that  prevent CITIZENS from voting.

MANY non citizens are here legally. They must not vote either.

I remember a remarkable non-citizen woman who was elected to PTA president at our kids elementary school. She was an immigrant with a child in every grade. (She was not undocumented)

She looked more like a Barbie Doll than any actual person I've seen. She even wore high heels.

Once I complemented her husband on his suit. It looked like an Italian designer suit. He said, "My wife sewed it." She made all the families cloths and did alterations at a cleaners. The husband worked in dietary at the hospital. Their son in my son's class is now an executive chef. While PTA president she became a citizen. We all applauded and congratulated her and husband, proud to be Americans. 

Soon after she told me she proudly voted for President Reagan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, nursej22 said:

Just a guess, but maybe it is not the role of the Federal government to insert themselves into a local level election of a school board. Of course, Fox news uses the pejorative "illegal immigrant" instead of the more accurate descriptor "undocumented immigrant". 

Democrats usually aren’t shy about inserting the powers of the federal govt amywhere.  However, your reasoning is plausible and I actually would agree if that’s the reason.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, SC_RNDude said:

Democrats usually aren’t shy about inserting the powers of the federal govt amywhere.  However, your reasoning is plausible and I actually would agree if that’s the reason.

 

Yup, Democrats like to bring up that nutty equal protection clause. 

See, this is  what I hate about the polarization of the two main parties. Everything is black and white; no gray or compromise. Eisenhower supported that great socialist project of the interstate highway system, Nixon created the EPA. 

Maybe I am just a Pollyanna, but I really think it is possible to find some common ground, instead of throwing around nasty names, and knee-jerk reactions to proposals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, nursej22 said:

Yup, Democrats like to bring up that nutty equal protection clause. 

See, this is  what I hate about the polarization of the two main parties. Everything is black and white; no gray or compromise. Eisenhower supported that great socialist project of the interstate highway system, Nixon created the EPA. 

Maybe I am just a Pollyanna, but I really think it is possible to find some common ground, instead of throwing around nasty names, and knee-jerk reactions to proposals. 

That was all done pre-Newt Gingrich.

The demise of political politeness and compromise has been traced back to Gingrich.

Seriously.

Very interesting stuff, but it has lead us to where we are.

People think that Trump ushered in all of current political incivility, but he didn't.

It was Newt Gingrich.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

Democrats usually aren’t shy about inserting the powers of the federal govt amywhere.  However, your reasoning is plausible and I actually would agree if that’s the reason.

 

But isn't it the Republicans who want to insert the powers of the federal government into womens' bodies, and tell us what we can or cannot do?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advertisement
50 minutes ago, BCgradnurse said:

But isn't it the Republicans who want to insert the powers of the federal government into womens' bodies, and tell us what we can or cannot do?  

I’m not anti-abortion myself, but the people I know who are it seems it’s more about their belief that abortion is ending a human life.  It has nothing to do with trying to control a woman’s body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, SC_RNDude said:

I’m not anti-abortion myself, but the people I know who are it seems it’s more about their belief that abortion is ending a human life.  It has nothing to do with trying to control a woman’s body.

Maybe on the surface, but it's all about not trusting or allowing women to have autonomy over our own bodies.  Where is the concern for the well being of the children already on the earth?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BCgradnurse said:

Maybe on the surface, but it's all about not trusting or allowing women to have autonomy over our own bodies.  Where is the concern for the well being of the children already on the earth?  

Of course, when women no longer have control over their own bodies and medical choices, they become infants themselves; dependent on others.

There is no concern for the children already on this earth.

In KY, our Republican led state legislature, is busy producing all kinds of anti-abortion laws.

At the same time, they are busy trying to enact a law that will help to siphon public dollars, away from public schools.

They also enacted a permit free, conceal carry law, that must have been written by the NRA.

It doesn't do a thing to protect already born children.

In fact, it endangers the welfare of children.

What do you call it when the state dictates the medical choices of just one gender?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Lil Nel said:

Of course, when women no longer have control over their own bodies and medical choices, they become infants themselves; dependent on others.

There is no concern for the children already on this earth.

In KY, our Republican led state legislature, is busy producing all kinds of anti-abortion laws.

At the same time, they are busy trying to enact a law that will help to siphon public dollars, away from public schools.

They also enacted a permit free, conceal carry law, that must have been written by the NRA.

It doesn't do a thing to protect already born children.

In fact, it endangers the welfare of children.

What do you call it when the state dictates the medical choices of just one gender?

In this country it's called conservatism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In many states bills to prohibit sex and STD education have been proposed.

Quote

In 2017 Missouri Republicans proposed a bill to allow employers and landlords to refused to hire or rent to women who use birth control.

The above paragraph is FALSE. NOT TRUE. I made the mistake of not verifying it becuse it had been printed in MANY news sources. But they made a mistake, and corrected it. See Chare's post in this thread.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BCgradnurse said:

Maybe on the surface, but it's all about not trusting or allowing women to have autonomy over our own bodies.  Where is the concern for the well being of the children already on the earth?  

Really?  You are of course entitled to you opinion, but that hasn’t been my experience.  Have you actually ever had a discussion with someone who is pro-life, or have you only listened to the liberal rhetoric?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×